Those seem like fairly arbitrary lines to draw. If I told you that the worst case scenario for your board game night is that you offend someone to the point where they pull out a gun and shoot you you would probably tell me that's an event that's so unlikely it's not worth considering.
Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.
Well risk is about likelihood vs impact, and work interactions are shaped by risk.
It’s a low likelihood but high impact event to be shot by your board game buddy.
It’s a med or high likelihood and high impact event that your career will suffer bc of a misstep in a social sphere at work, or imo more accurately it’s a medium/high likelihood and high impact reward that by navigating work socialization correctly and as anything but a normal social interaction, you’ll do well.
Both result in high impact/high likelihood results for my family.
So why take the risk/lose out on the reward just so I can have work friends who are truly friends?
Fwiw, there is legit academic research on the work social dynamic being about anything except normal friendships. The Organization Man is one example of academic research, the other is https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... which is a bit more pop-psychology that still rings true vs experiences.
You can reach whatever conclusion you want by assigning "high risk" to the things you don't want to do and "low risk" to the things you want to do but that doesn't make it more objective.
My experience is that the risk-adjusted expected value of being a sociable person at work is positive, both for your career and your overall happiness. I gather you think it's negative, which is fine, but let's not pretend one of us is more objectively correct than the other.
I haven't read The Organization Man (summary says it's a set of interviews with CEOs, does not seem too relevant for normal employees). I have read the Gervais principle. It's fun, and contextualizing it with your own experiences is valuable, but it is very loosely correlated to reality based on my own experience.
No, I don’t think it’s negative. Being sociable as actually the best way to get ahead in work. People want to help people who are nice and help back. This is the only way to do well long term at work, paired with really knowing your skill set.
The difference is I can do that sociable action just fine without adding an office dynamic that adds a commute and related expenses to my day (from a remote work discussion angle) and then hedge related risk of a social misfire damaging work (from a ITT angle).
I mean have you never seen someone drop the professional but social veneer for their true selves and seen it backfire? I certainly have but my experiences aren’t everything for sure.
Summary of Org Man is wrong. It’s a longitudinal study of lower/middle managers as they advance their careers on how workplace culture actually works and how they make decisions vs what’s taught in MBA programs. it’s all about tactical socialization and they leave their real selves at the door.
Edit - it’s also useful for engineers to read to understand the context that governs their work beyond making great tech. I was recommended it a while back and it saves my sanity.
I have, but not in a way that has me worried for myself. The cases of backfire I've seen it's been either horrid opinions or gross misconduct.
I don't disagree that some of this might be needed if you're angling to climb the management ladders and large multinationals but I don't think that accurately describes most posters at HN.
Thanks for the updated summary, it sounds super interesting. I'm going to read it as soon as I can.
Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.